I will be at the ABA White Collar Crime this Wednesday through Friday in San Francisco.  If you are there, be sure to say hello.

Blawg Review #189 is now available at Infamy or Praise.

Blawg Review #188, with an Alice’s Restaurant theme, is available at the New York Personal Injury Law Blog.

Blawg Review #168 is now available at the Res Ipsa blog.

Check out Blawg Review #184 at The Faculty Lounge.

I have not linked to Blawg Reviews recently because the quality has been, IMHO, poor.  But the last two were well done.  Check out Blawg Reviews #177 and #178.

There is tension between Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) - requiring a “short and plain statement” - and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) - requiring the party state fraud claim with particularity.  Not to mention between Rule 8(a) and Twombley.

The (new) Legal Writer blog brings to our attention an excellent July 27, 2008 opinion from the District Court for the Western District of Washington concerning a 465 page complaint.  According to the opinion:

The title to the Complaint is eight pages. …  It appears to list all of Plaintiff’s claims, as well as their statutory and precedential basis.  In eighteen pages following the title, the Plaintiff lists the Defendants.  There are six Defendants. ….

Not before page 30 does the Complaint address the facts alleged. Plaintiff’s allegations continue for 87 pages—including a 37 page pit-stop to quote emails. …. The Court notes, with some irony, that in his response opposing Defendants’ motions for a more definite statement, the Plaintiff successfully states his allegations in two pages.  …

On page 117, Plaintiff embarks on an odyssey through his claims for relief. While the Court understands that asserting 54 claims requires some space, the 341 pages used to do so is unreasonable.

The Court granted the defendants’ motions for a more definite statement and concluded:

Plaintiff has a great deal to say,

But it seems he skipped Rule 8(a),

His Complaint is too long,

Which renders it wrong,

Please re-write and re-file today.

Brilliant.

Blawg Review #164 is now available at the Cearta.ie blog.

Blawg Review #163 is now available at More Partner Income.

Although not an antitrust issue, I thought this news (via the Washington Post) might generate a few comments (my emphasis):

Redskins owner Dan Snyder reached a deal yesterday to buy three local AM radio stations from Clear Channel Communications, including the area’s leading sports-talk station, WTEM. The purchase gives Snyder control of sports talk radio in Washington.  It thus gives the owner of the most popular and closely followed sports franchise in the region ownership of the bigget broadcast outlets for commentary about his team.

Snyder’s purchase of WTEM (980), WTNT (570) and WWRC (1260) for an undisclosed price means his Red Zebra Broadcasting arm will own six stations in the area. Red Zebra’s current stations, known as Triple X ESPN Radio, also carry sports-talk programs.

Before my fellow Washingtonians get too worked up:

Team owners have made similar moves for decades. Tribune Co. of Chicago owns baseball’s Cubs, the Chicago Tribune and WGN, the TV station that broadcasts the team’s games.  Ted Turner’s Turner Broadcasting System owned the Atlanta Braves and their main broadcast outlet, WTBS.  More recently, the NFL and the New York Yankees both started cable networks and moved games onto their channels.

In other sports and competition news, Justice Alito recently spoke about baseball and antitrust (The BLT via the Sports Law Blog):

On the subject of baseball and antitrust, Alito said the 1922 decision has been widely misinterpreted as granting baseball an antitrust exemption, which is “not exactly correct.” Alito took the audience through the history of the case and of baseball, concluding that the Supreme Court had affirmed the view of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit that baseball games were not examples of interstate commerce. Even though players cross state lines to play, the games themselves are “state affairs” from beginning to end and as such are not covered by the Sherman Act. Alito’s point apparently was that the Court had not specifically exempted baseball from antitrust laws, but that it had defined the sport in such a way that it, like other intrastate events, was not covered.

Alito said the Supreme Court’s decision has been pilloried by scholars and judges alike in the decades since it was issued. More recently, he said, some commentators have been “less harsh,” fitting it into a more modest view of the scope of the Constitution’s commerce clause. Alito indicated that he is in the camp that views the case more kindly.

Blawg Review #162 is now available at the China Law Blog.

Blawg Review #161 is now available at the Patent Baristas.

Blawg Review #160 is now available at Ruthie’s Law.

Blawg Review #159 is now available at the Whistleblower Blog.

Blawg Review #158 is now available at The Mommy Blawg.